an article by Katie Kay and George Edgley (Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, Ashton-under-Lyne, UK) published in Mental Health and Social Inclusion Volume 23 Issue 1 (2019)
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate cost efficiencies and health outcomes after one academic year of course delivery, in a recovery college.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper used service evaluation and review of data.
Findings
There is significant impact on health outcomes when standardised measures of Patient Activation Measure and Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale were completed pre- and post-intervention, with indications of possible financial efficiencies identified within secondary care mental health pathways.
Research limitations/implications
The current evaluation sample is only representative of community mental health populations rather than broader communities. However, indications are that the model is effective from a wider public health perspective (early intervention/prevention) in producing significant health outcomes in terms of improved wellbeing and increased levels of activation/self-management. More in-depth research collaboration with an academic institution is now required.
Practical implications
There is an implication that the recovery college needs to be fully embedded within the mental health pathway as part of the core offer. This would require significant service redesign and culture change within the organisation.
Social implications
There is a need to continue to work with other statutory service providers, key stakeholders, voluntary and community sectors to embed the college with wider public health services and ensure a holistic approach across local communities and the whole health pathway.
Originality/value
Although the model is based on the widely recognised national recovery college model, it has moved away from the usual boundaries of access only being for those attached to secondary care mental health services to a more holistic and integrative approach of offering access to the whole population. Social value is indicated in the ownership and co-production of the model by the collaboration of student expertise, experts by experience and experts by expertise. The co-produced integrated volunteering and work pathway offers positive and cost-efficient health outcomes from a co-designed and co-delivered educational approach.
Showing posts with label efficiency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label efficiency. Show all posts
Thursday, 28 March 2019
Monday, 9 October 2017
Sharing: post-scarcity beyond capitalism?
an article by Matthew David (University of Durham, UK)
published in Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society Volume 10 Issue 2 (July 2017)
Abstract
Regarding efficiency, efficacy and incentive, free-sharing online (of recordings, live broadcasts, software and published works) outperforms market and property systems by reducing costs of production and distribution, increasing quality and access and better promoting creativity.
Free-sharing online emerged within “global network capitalism” and non-capitalist networks. Free-sharing of purely informational content online challenges capitalism by eliminating scarcity. However, post-scarcity is limited by constraints on time and the capacity to filter digital plenitude. These limits create scope for alternative business models.
Free-sharing online tempers capitalism’s “tragedy of the anticommons”. However, to date, post-scarcity remains incomplete.
Abstract
Regarding efficiency, efficacy and incentive, free-sharing online (of recordings, live broadcasts, software and published works) outperforms market and property systems by reducing costs of production and distribution, increasing quality and access and better promoting creativity.
Free-sharing online emerged within “global network capitalism” and non-capitalist networks. Free-sharing of purely informational content online challenges capitalism by eliminating scarcity. However, post-scarcity is limited by constraints on time and the capacity to filter digital plenitude. These limits create scope for alternative business models.
Free-sharing online tempers capitalism’s “tragedy of the anticommons”. However, to date, post-scarcity remains incomplete.
Wednesday, 12 June 2013
Continuing Professional Development: Accountability, Autonomy, Efficiency and Equity in Five Professions
an article by Hywel Thomas and Tian Qiu (Centre for Research in Medical and Dental Education, University of Birmingham, UK) published in British Journal of Educational Studies Volume 61 Issue 2 (June 2013)
Abstract
We examine the influence of neo-liberalism in re-shaping the accountability of five professional groups (accountants, solicitors, social workers, nurses and doctors) and its consequence for their CPD policies. Documentary analysis and Quarterly Labour Force Survey data (n=31,260) from the 1990s to the present are integrated in a comparative method which examines whether changes are specific to a profession or represent more general patterns.
Using complementary theories from neo-liberal economics and the sociology of professionalism, we show how regulatory oversight has altered accountabilities. Its consequences for the autonomy of professions and individuals in determining CPD requirements differ amongst the five groups, mediated by status, public concern, regulator activism and, possibly, alignment with the financial sector.
Efficiency and equity are analysed using theories of professional learning and human capital.
Wider economic conditions influence the incidence of CPD with recent years showing declining participation; we also show changes in ‘what counts’ as CPD and its greater integration with performance management. Findings on selected equity criteria are also reported.
Some regulators are becoming more specific about the content of CPD, while others are defining what constitutes good practice and requiring its use in planning CPD. Greater attention is being given to issues of ethics and probity.
Abstract
We examine the influence of neo-liberalism in re-shaping the accountability of five professional groups (accountants, solicitors, social workers, nurses and doctors) and its consequence for their CPD policies. Documentary analysis and Quarterly Labour Force Survey data (n=31,260) from the 1990s to the present are integrated in a comparative method which examines whether changes are specific to a profession or represent more general patterns.
Using complementary theories from neo-liberal economics and the sociology of professionalism, we show how regulatory oversight has altered accountabilities. Its consequences for the autonomy of professions and individuals in determining CPD requirements differ amongst the five groups, mediated by status, public concern, regulator activism and, possibly, alignment with the financial sector.
Efficiency and equity are analysed using theories of professional learning and human capital.
Wider economic conditions influence the incidence of CPD with recent years showing declining participation; we also show changes in ‘what counts’ as CPD and its greater integration with performance management. Findings on selected equity criteria are also reported.
Some regulators are becoming more specific about the content of CPD, while others are defining what constitutes good practice and requiring its use in planning CPD. Greater attention is being given to issues of ethics and probity.
Monday, 25 June 2012
Why the Happy Planet Index is the ultimate measure of economic efficiency
Why the Happy Planet Index is the ultimate measure of economic efficiency
via the new economics foundation by Sagar Shahn(Researcher, Centre for Well-being)
The latest edition of the HPI should be a reminder to economists about what economics is really about.
Original post has a relevant image at this point but I can’t
find it to check copyright.
On the day of the launch of the Happy Planet Index, my colleagues here at nef created an infographic comparing some statistics of Costa Rica and the USA, asking “which economy is more efficient” [infographic posted to Facebook].
Original post
via the new economics foundation by Sagar Shahn(Researcher, Centre for Well-being)
The latest edition of the HPI should be a reminder to economists about what economics is really about.
Original post has a relevant image at this point but I can’t
find it to check copyright.
On the day of the launch of the Happy Planet Index, my colleagues here at nef created an infographic comparing some statistics of Costa Rica and the USA, asking “which economy is more efficient” [infographic posted to Facebook].
Original post
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
The Happy Planet Index asks a new sort of question
via the new economics foundation by Juliet Michaelson
Its critics are keen to paint it as a straightforward happiness measure, but the HPI is much more than that.
Lara Hoffmans, writing in Forbes, has been casting a sceptical eye over our Happy Planet Index (HPI), under a wonderfully titled article 'Give Me Tacocopter Or Give Me Death!'. (She couldn’t contemplate living in a country without the prospect of taco delivery via unmanned helicopter – and yes, this is actually something being developed in the US.)
For those not familiar with it, the HPI is not a straightforward happiness measure. It is an efficiency indicator, showing how much well-being countries achieve per unit of resources they consume. Instead of using GDP as a measure of output it uses average life expectancy and well-being as the end product of a nation. And it uses the resources of the planet that we all share as a fundamental input, because they are vital and finite. It is a global index with scores for nearly 150 countries that we produce every three years, with the next release coming out this June, in the run up to the UN’s Rio +20 conference.
Read more
Its critics are keen to paint it as a straightforward happiness measure, but the HPI is much more than that.
Lara Hoffmans, writing in Forbes, has been casting a sceptical eye over our Happy Planet Index (HPI), under a wonderfully titled article 'Give Me Tacocopter Or Give Me Death!'. (She couldn’t contemplate living in a country without the prospect of taco delivery via unmanned helicopter – and yes, this is actually something being developed in the US.)
For those not familiar with it, the HPI is not a straightforward happiness measure. It is an efficiency indicator, showing how much well-being countries achieve per unit of resources they consume. Instead of using GDP as a measure of output it uses average life expectancy and well-being as the end product of a nation. And it uses the resources of the planet that we all share as a fundamental input, because they are vital and finite. It is a global index with scores for nearly 150 countries that we produce every three years, with the next release coming out this June, in the run up to the UN’s Rio +20 conference.
Read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
